La Gran Bretagna sta affrontando un “tsunami” di povertà pensionabile, afferma Kendall

Preparing the grounds for raising the retirement age to sustain those currently on it.

I jolly well hope they’ve cancelled bingo night and whatever it is pensioners have on their toast.

>Kendall confirmed that she was also launching the regular statutory review of the state pensions age. It is set at 66 but is already expected to rise to 67 between 2026 and 2028.

>Kendall made clear that the costly triple lock pensions guarantee will not be considered by the commission, which is set to report in 2027. “The triple lock is out of scope,” she said.

This country will do literally anything but stop enriching the current generation of pensioners.

>It will also look at the idea of “sidecar savings”, which are advocated by the Resolution Foundation thinktank whose former chair, Torsten Bell, is a pensions minister. This approach would allow a set amount of pension savings to be accessed as a rainy-day fund in emergencies.

This sounds good on paper. I’m sure people would save more into their pensions if it weren’t completely untouchable for 30-odd years.

The Germans just released a study to let rich boomers pay for their poor boomer counterparts.

Do that and lets hope the Worst Generation leaves this planet as fast as possible so we can move on before it is too late.

“We need to reform pensions!”

>“The triple lock is out of scope” 

But not in a meaningful way!

Honestly the state of an article blaming the young for not paying enough for their future when the old didn’t have to think about it and quite often got final salary pensions is sort of hilarious. The young can’t afford to put a roof over their heads now, let alone think about 40 – 50 – (60 – 70?) years time.

Meanwhile the elderly must carry on as they are.

It was a nasty bit of work for the Tories to reverse the age rise on the way out the door knowing full well that Labour would have to put it back up

I think a lot of people’s retirement plan will be playing rock, paper, scissors with their significant other to see which one is going to have an accident and which one is going to get a life insurance pay out.

In the UK there are more children in poverty than pensioners.

Get your priorities right.

Unless you want those children to still be in poverty when they’re pensioners.

Silly me for expecting the government to think long term.

You mean high taxes and regulation hasn’t bought us prosperity ? Who would have thought it…

So when women are working until they’re 70, who’s going to be providing free childcare for grandchildren and taking care of elderly parents or disabled relatives?

Is the cost of losing that free labour really less than it would cost to pay people pensions they can live on? How about trying to drive down the cost of living by stopping the rich from fleecing us?

The current socio-economic consensus saw current retirees take advantage of the likes of right to buy, and memberships to defined benefit pension schemes. Social housing was never replenished, local authorities kneecapped to fix it, and the pensions regime shifted to favour the employer as one of the key pillars of retirement left the responsibility of your employer and was given directly to you ( and you weren’t educated or prepared for this, similar to the waspi women situation, they certainly try and make out efforts were made but it’s just a con to take from you and relax the demands on the employer (or State in the case of the waspi women)).

The greed of this consensus, the mentality it embedded into the country (me, mine and f*?* Everyone else) is a large reason for the state we are in. It wasn’t a consensus made with younger cohorts, this was decided before us.

Pensioners and other retirees are the largest holders of wealth in the country, when looking purely in generational cohort terms, as such squeezing them would likely result in stationary capital moving, (woo GDP). It’s encouraged ideologically.

Again this is not something I would do if I was in charge, myself or even a bunch of 8 year olds (for context, a bunch of year 4s with no training) would likely come up with anything better.

How about we also implement a max voting age. Why do old sods get to decide how the younger generation live when they won’t be around to see the consequences of their vote. At the same time add a max politician age that is directly linked to retirement age.

Not MPs and civil servants, though with their gold plated pensions